Maddi Jeffrey Aaron Moore v. HICKEY, Classification Officer at M.C.A.D.F.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MADDI JEFFREY AARON MOORE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
HICKEY, Classification Officer at
M.C.A.D.F.; RUYG, Classification Officer at
M.C.A.D.F.; DOUG SCHUSTER, Sheriff at
Mohave County; DON BISCHOFF, Director
at M.C.A.D.F.; PAM COWIN, Legal
Assistant at M.C.A.D.F.; COX, named as Lt.
Cox; Administrator at M.C.A.D.F.; HULL,
Grievance Officer at M.C.A.D.F.; ANHALT,
Mail Officer at M.C.A.D.F.; RAHM,
Hygiene Officer at M.C.A.D.F.; RAMSEY,
Hygiene Officer at M.C.A.D.F.;
CANDELARIA, named as Sgt. Candelaria;
Supervisor at M.C.A.D.F.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-15915
D.C. No. 3:18-cv-08221-DLR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 15, 2022**
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUN 28 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-15915
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Maddi Jeffrey Aaron Moore appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies
her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth Amendment violations that occurred
while Moore was a pretrial detainee. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review for clear error the district court’s factual findings relevant to its
exhaustion determination, and we review de novo the district court’s legal rulings
on exhaustion. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). We
affirm.
The district court did not commit clear error by finding, following an
evidentiary hearing, that Moore’s administrative remedies were not effectively
unavailable, and that Moore failed to exhaust administrative remedies on her
Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim. See Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632, 638,
642-44 (2016) (explaining that an inmate must exhaust “such administrative
remedies as are available” before bringing suit, and describing limited
circumstances under which administrative remedies are effectively unavailable);
Husain v. Olympic Airways, 316 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[I]f the district
court’s findings are plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, the
appellate court cannot reverse even if it is convinced it would have found
differently.”).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-15915
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --